forcing notation to as performed

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

First, an apology, because I suspect this will end up being answered by Sherry or Mark, not by a fellow-member of the Forum: I know the answer is in the User Guide, but the problem is finding it. I've been sitting here for half an hour, trying various terms in the search box, without yet finding what I want, although I have found the converse, and I can now express what I want in Composer language.

I have come in on the 'Combine notes into chords' entry. What I am looking up is the converse - separating out (in notation)notes which are currently shown staff-wise as simultaneous, but which the scroll highlight and my ear tell me are sounding sequentially.

Or, to put it another way, I want the notation to be 'as performed'.

And, just to be picky, I don't want to use the Piano Roll !

A few days ago I found a screen where I could set a duration/seaparation value whereby Composer would determine whether to treat adjacent notes as parts of a chord, or parts of a line. But can I find it again ? !

Finally, just the comment, that I do find this 'find it in the Guide' thing a recurrent problem - the info is almost always in there, but it can be very difficult to locate it by search. It's difficult to put a finger on why. I wonder if it might help if the index (or possibly the topic titles) were re-compiled by someone not involved in the actual design/programming of the software ?

Right, I'm done. And I do love Composer! Honest!

Ian G.

[David Jacklin (dj)]

Hi, Ian:

I'll frustrate your expectations by answering first.

I wonder whether the Do Not Remove Rests under the Setup/Transcription options might do what you wish: force Composer to transcribe as performed. Or at least much closer.

That would mean change the setting in Transcription Options, then choose Retranscribe ("qrt") under the Format menu.

Not sure about the "duration/separation" value you mention, unless it's as above.

Good luck.

David

[Sherry Crann (sherry)]

Howdy guys,

David is correct that checking the "Do not remove rests" in Setup/Transcription Options will put you quite close. But the option I think you're looking for is the "two-note chords" option at the bottom of the dialog. I see that this option is not included in the Format/Retranscribe dialog, and I'll write that up for a fix (task 2076). If you're recording from a MIDI keyboard into a new file, the Setup/Transcription options will be applied.

The Setup/Transcription Options dialog is shown below, with some "fields for consideration when asking for notated-as-performed" circled:

http://www.notation.com/discus/messages/32459/37065.png

The great thing is that if you don't like how it looks the first time, you can use the Format/Retranscribe command and change the settings til you get what you like http://www.notation.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif One of the reasons that so many options are offered is that quite often if you have a MIDI file with "feeling", that "feeling" part makes the notation quite difficult to read. Of course if you want to edit the file, seeing it plain and whole is helpful http://www.notation.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Now, to drill down to some usability issues here, because Ian is obviously frustrated, and this assures me that others are frustrated as well (There's a rule of thumb that if one person voices frustration or points out a problem, there are at least 10 others who feel the same. Given our number of users, I'd say it's probably more like 100 at least.)

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

I wonder if it might help if the index (or possibly the topic titles) were re-compiled by someone not involved in the actual design/programming of the software?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Thanks Ian - I love it when people volunteer for a job ;)

Seriously, we really have tried to think like musicians about terms used in the Users Guide, but we also know that it's not perfect http://www.notation.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif What kinds of terms were you using to try and find the information you needed? We do take suggestions seriously, and have used them before to improve the Users Guide, so let me know. And that's not just for this topic, but for any that you're trying to find.

ttfn,
Sherry

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

I had posted in reply to David, as Sherry knows, but I had simply 'replied' to the notification I'd received, which apparently doesn't work.

What I said was:
Hello, again, David. Yes, I think the 'rests' thing does have some impact. But there are also trade-offs - I tend to prefer to set the some value for the rests because if you see absolutely everything 'as performed' , you see way too much to read the score effectively. Also, what I'm trying to get round is often NOT the really finicky little pieces of micro-timing that live playing (or Biab simulation) often (inevitably) throws up. What I find is that in swing notation sometimes say a two beat sequence like: quaver rest/quaver/quaver/quaver gets transcribed as three crochets all clustered in the third of those beat-positions, when the sound and the highlighting of the current notes both show quite (sorry, hit the wrong key there and it suddenly got 'sent') clearly what the underlying 'registration' is. I'm talking here maybe once every 10 or 12 recurrences of that rhythm. I'm doing a lot of moving back and forth between Composer and Biab as I develop a piece, and it gets a bit of a bind having to 'tidy up' manually instance by instance at each re-import.

And Sherry, the incoherent message you replied to me privately from was a mislaunch in the course of writing what I've just pasted in.

I'll work through your advice on the primary issue before I respond any further on that.

On the use-ability of the Guide: I can only repeat that I'm not 'complaining' in a negative sense. And also it's hard to actually pin down quite what 'isn't working' - but certainly the 'frustration'
is not just a passing or single-issue thing. My thought in proposing what I did was that in terms of interpreting it to someone else, maybe the person who's created it is not the best person. S/he will think by means of his/her own familiarity with what s/he has created.
In the medium term, a redesign of the screen would help - with both the list of chapters, and the actual text of the selected one, you're trying to get way too much in a single screen, and I'm forever dragging the dividing line this way or that. But that is not the fundamental problem. I'm not, for the moment, volunteering to do a re-index :-). But I will try, when I need to look something up, just to jot down the terms I search on, and if I need to post an enquiry, I could include that info in the post. Maybe others could do the same.

Ian G.

[Herbert WENDE (herbert)]

Hi Ian, ...

You said:

“... I want the notation to be 'as performed'.

And, just to be picky, I don't want to use the Piano Roll !”

I think I understand what you mean. On a few occasions I wanted to do just that, have notes only slightly offset in time and shown so by notation. I did it by editing the notation, only to find out that in some instances Composer reinterpreted the changes as ornaments, which did not make sense in a drum staff.

Related to this and some times a real pain is that Composer always starts up with “Edit as-notated note attacks and durations”. I would prefer if Composer would start up with “Edit both as-notated and as-performed”. If I advance a group of notes by shifting them to the left, I expect the performance to follow and that this is the default behavior.

Best wishes,

Herbert

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Sherry, David, Herbert (and any silent readers!)

Sorry for the hiatus - digesting what's already been said, and other things to do .

In reverse order:
the search issue:
I have belatedly discovered the downloadable pdf of the User's Guide. Now that certainly improves matters considerably. But still, I had quite an extended session yesterday looking for the screen I referred to in my first post, and I still haven't found it. (It isn't a figment of my imagination. When I had it before, I tried varying a value and the effect was so extreme, I felt I didn't want to be side-tracked at that moment learning the calibration, and turned back to methods I was familiar with, as one does. ) I suspect it may have to do with 'offsets' or possibly 'duration' My search yesterday brought me back to 5.4.9.5,
"If the notes are played closely together, then Composer will display the notes as a single chord. If one note is played some significant amount of time before another note, then Composer will display that note as a grace note or as a normal note with a short duration, such
as a 32nd or 64th note."
I think the screen I found allowed me to quantify what that 'significant amount of time' was.
5.4.9.5 seems to me a suggestively one-sided entry: it seems to a require a companion which describes the converse process ?

Re the 'main issue': I have worked with your 'paste', Sherry, and I think have run through the permutations without really achieving what I want. More of this below.......

Herbert: I think your comment is a good one. I also find that 'stability' of setting can be an issue. One place where I find it is re whether I'm in select mode, (and if so which of the two I'm in) or entry mode - it seems to me that Composer sometimes switches from one to the other for no reason that I can see, in mid-process. e.g. sometimes when I've selected the region select arrow, it pops back to the spot arrow while I'm moving the cursor to the location. Conversely, the entry (+) mode sometimes auto-activates when I select a time-value, and sometimes doesn't. I think some of these variations (and I can think of other examples) may be related to how many changes have been made since I last 'saved' the file - it seems to me that sometimes a 'save' gets things moving smoothly again. Sometimes, one step further, if it doesn't, I actually close the file, and re-open it, and that often 'clears a blockage'.
What I now propose to do is to make further postings in this conversation at the 'sharing things with your fellow musicians' location, because I think that gives more scope for deviation; and I will try to find time to make a series of controlled sample swaps of part of the tune I'm working on back and forth, and post how it goes, maybe with the files.

BW

Ian G.

[Mark Walsen (markwa)]

Hello Ian and Herbert,

I'll jump in to this thread with an attempt initially to clarify where you're finding usability problems with Composer in the area of rhythm transcription.

Composer makes decisions about transcribing details of MIDI note timing to notated rhythms that the user can control only with a few Transcription Options (which Sherry has shown in a screen shot above). My understanding is that you would like greater control over how these detail rhythm transcription decisions are made.

Let's dig a little bit deeper into your need for greater control over rhythm transcription.

One reason that a user will want to greater control over rhythm transcription is so that Composer will create more readable scores. If Composer is too "loose" in its rhythm transcription, then finer details are loss. For example, two short notes that should be notated as a sequence of two short notes might be incorrectly notated as a single 2-note chord. Or, a grace note in front of a 3-note chord might be incorrectly merged into the chord as though it were just another peer member of a 4-note chord. On the other hand, if Composer is too "tight", then the score is "over-notated" with complicated rhythms that don't make musical sense. For example, if you played a 3-note chord somewhat unevenly, you wouldn't want to ask another musician to play it mechanically the same as you did, with one note coming a 64th sooner than the beat, with a duration a double dotted 32nd rest shorter than the total quarter note duration of the chord. In transcribing readable rhythms, Composer must achieve a balancing act between transcription that is too loose, and too tight. Notation Software products have doing this notation rhythm balancing act better than any other software in the market for many years.

I suspect that some of your motivation for greater control over the details of rhythm transcription is more than just that of Composer’s primary goal in this area, which is to convert precise MIDI rhythms into readable notated rhythms. But let’s first just consider that particular goal, to transcribe readable rhythms. Composer doesn’t do a perfect job of transcribing readable rhythms. It’s a very difficult task to automate anywhere close to perfectly. If you want Composer to do a better job transcribing readable rhythms, how could Composer be improved to do that? One way is that Composer could offer more knobs to control lower levels of decision making in its rhythm transcription. Indeed, Composer internally has a couple thousand such knobs. During the years 1994 to 1997 or so, I spent a couple of man-years experimenting with these couple thousand of knobs to come up with a good balance between too loose and too tight notation. It was a huge effort tuning the knob values. In later years, I balanced the knobs for a few different styles of music, such as swing/jazz, which wants to bias the notation of swing rhythms (eg, displaying as a simple pair of 8th notes an actually performed triplet of two tied 8th notes followed by an 8th note). I could expose all of these knobs to the user, or perhaps consolidate them into fewer knobs that control lower level knobs in parallel. But I’m fairly certain that users would not be grateful if this were done. The extra control exercised by the user would almost always result less readable, not more readable notation. I know, because in my own extensive experiments, I usually have to adjust knobs dozens of times, making the notation worse, before I land on a good balance that makes the notation better. It was a lot of trial-and-error work, and I knew these couple thousand of knobs much better than any user could, even with a 100 pages of documentation describing how the knobs work.

So, in the future, am I going to offer the user more detailed control over transcription decisions? In general, no. For one thing, I don’t relish the idea of writing another 100 pages of documentation describing the knobs, that users would just complain about because it is way too complex! However, I would like to return to the programming of Composer’s transcription to further improve its decision making. Also, I’d like to offer more “Rhythm Styles” in the Transcription Options dialog box, where each distinct rhythm style is tuned with a different set of values for the couple thousand knobs, to product better transcription results for that distinct style of music.

This post is already long, but I don’t think it has yet addressed some of the most important underlying needs that you have for control over the rhythm transcription. If I understand correctly, neither of you (Ian and Herbert) are concerned just about producing readable scores. Rather, you want more control over the as-performed rhythms—how the rhythms actually sound. Further, you don’t want to use piano roll to visualize the precise timing of notes. Rather, you actually want Composer to over-notate the rhythms, in such details as would be unreadable by a musician.

Let’s return to an earlier example above: If you played a 3-note chord somewhat unevenly, maybe one note comes a 64th sooner than the beat, with a duration a double dotted 32nd rest shorter than the total quarter note duration of the chord. You’d actually want to see it notated in such exact detail! You’d like to see detailed as-performed rhythms actually written out in notation, so that you could then adjust the rhythmic details of the performance by manipulating the rhythmic notation, rather than by using the piano roll notation. Is that what you want?

Cheers
-- Mark

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Mark

I have just found your post (and on a Sunday, too!)and want to thank you profusely but sincerely for it. I intend to do it the respect of 'not shooting from the hip' in response, but I will 'come back to you' in due course.

Many thanks !

Sincerely

Ian

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Dear Mark

Thanks, once again, for your very generously attentive post.

To start with a point of detail:
knobs and switches: one thread of my enquiry was re the control which I found a couple of weeks ago, and can't find again. I didn't make full use of it for the reason you had to devote such attention to the full set of 2k - my first attempt was obviously wide of the appropriate calibration, and I just wanted, at that moment, to get on and play. But I would like to go back to it. Can you identify it from what I've already said ?

Generally: I actually want to do different things with Composer at different times, and I agree that I need command of more than one lot of settings. I think it might help if I began by saying a bit about my musical interests and objectives.

I'm a baby-boomer. I was fortunate to have music lessons almost throughout my schooldays - principally piano, but also a lot of theory and some organ tuition. In the style of the times, it was very 'hand and eye' - you read the score and played it, you did exercises on MS paper. The ear came a long way behind, and improvisation wasn't even considered. (I had some grounding in baroque figured bass, but never at a keyboard ! ). So I've always been pretty efficient at sight-reading, but until recently, I was hopeless at playing by ear or playing at all without some sort of score in front of me, and in effect I had a very bad memory for music. Pieces I've been playing for 40 years, I still needed the score in front of me, even though it is/was obviously a sort of comfort blanket - at a deeper level the notes were in my fingers.

In the last 2 or 3 years, my interest in jazz has blossomed, and I've both extended my IT skills to include music, and made a concerted effort to extend my musical skills. I use mainly Band in a Box, and Composer. In both cases, my earliest interest was that through them I could get at notated jazz piano pieces, I hoped that by using my reading skill on the appropriate scores, my ear and playing skills would improve in the direction I wanted to go. And that has indeed proved the case. I first preferred Composer to its competitors because its transcriptions were so way ahead of what any other software I could afford would do. So brownie points to you there, Mark ! I'm not in any sense coming at this in a spirit of criticism.

Now, I am moving on to at least the foothills of composition. One aspect of this is a kind of improvisation at the PC keyboard as distinct from the piano keyboard, though obviously I'm back and forth between the two. But I find that Notation allows me to take as starting points e.g. some rhythmic patterns, and/ or a harmonic sequence, and, so to speak, improvise in super slomo on the computer, working and reworking phrases and sequences until I'm reasonably satisfied with them.

So I get to a point where I have, say, 32 bars of melody/top line, and maybe some ideas about harmony. The melody I have input to Composer at the computer, so at this stage it should be pretty precise, even wooden. If it is swing (as it usually is) I enter it in straight time at this stage (see next stage). I export it to a midi file.

Then I go to Biab. I import the melody directly into Biab from the midi file, and Biab will interpret it as 'swung' if I ask it to. I add chords (often asking Biab's opinion on that) and choose a style from Biab's vast range, and usually develop a 3, 4 or 5 chorus arrangement. I can save all that both as a Biab file and as a midi.

Now I want to go back to Composer. One reason for doing this is because Composer's rhythmic transcription, score graphics and scrolling are so vastly superior to Biab's, so if I want visual prompts, it is much better to play the thing in Composer. But another reason is that I may want to do a new round of editing with the materials I've developed. The backing channels I'm generally happy to leave largely as they are - drums, guitars, sometimes bass. It's the parts that I want to draw on to develop my own piano performance that I want to get at in detail - the melody; often a (Biab) solo for the middle chorus; plus cherry-picking from the Biab piano comping and bass lines to give myself some ideas of structure for my own left hand.

Now, for instance, the lead line which I developed in Composer, exported to midi and imported to Biab, and re-exported (usually unchanged except for the swing 'switch') to midi, and now re-import to Composer, mostly emerges relatively unscathed - but almost always there are glitches. Triplets which come up in all sorts of variations, and the 2 or 3 close but not simultaneous notes which are visualised as a chord, are the most common issues. To be fair, Composer provides plenty of straightforward ways to re-edit these manually, one by one, but ideally I'd prefer not to have to ! And simply re-pasting the line from my original *.not file is only an option if I'm not concerned with the sound.

(One thing I don't understand re this part of the process is how Composer understands/records/reads 'swing'. When I re-import to Composer, although it transcribes in detail the more complicated bits of timing, sequences of swung quavers are usually transcribed visually as straight eights, but sounded as swung. If I go in to a bar and tweak something, those two or four quavers often (but not always !) then sound straight. )

So often, within the single midi file, I want different things from different channels. And at different times.

The backing channels I want for sound, and most of the time I'm not too bothered what they look like. Quite often I will have them not 'shown' to create more screen space.

As for whatever I have evolved as my own two-handed piano part:
if I'm trying to read a transcription in detail, to stretch myself and take in new ideas, I want a reasonably intricate rhythmic notation, but not grotesquely so. I may at this stage be concerned about a pretty close correspondence between what is displayed and what is sounding, so that my ears and eyes can work together to 'get' a new groove. [One of my bugbears (which I haven't mentioned before in this thread!) is Composer's attachment to ties. I can understand how it arises, I think, but I would really like a straightforward over-ride, such as Composer has about accidentals, to say "show this as a dotted minim, d*** you !" ]

On the other hand, a bit further down the line, I may prefer my own part notated in a fairly bland way - I will now be confident to play from it, rather than playing it. In such a case I may sent the rest limit quite high, to get a clean score, because the minute detail has become a distraction. In this case, how it sounds is irrelevant, since the track will be muted.

Well, just as Mark feared earlier today, I may have exhausted everyone's patience for the moment, and Mark is probably scratching his head and saying "But what do you actually want ?" I think, as I suggested this morning, it may be helpful in the next few days/weeks to post some mini-files with egs of some of the not-ideal things that come up ?

I will post this both in the existing thread, and in the 'sharing with fellow musicians' place.

BW

Ian G.

[Mark Walsen (markwa)]

Hello Ian,

That's a good idea, at the end of your above post, that you might show us specific examples of what Composer does versus what you wish it would do in the transcription.

One problem you mentioned is that in going back and forth between Composer and Band-in-a-Box, the rhythms get re-interpreted. The reason for this is the following: Whereas Composer .not files keep track of both the as-performed and as-notated rhythms, MIDI files keep track of only the MIDI rhythms. MIDI files are what are exchanged between Band-in-a-Box and Composer. So, any original information the Composer has about the difference between the as-performed and as-notated rhythms is lost in the transfer of the MIDI file, and so Composer must recalculate the notated rhythms again from scratch.

I have in mind two ways to overcome that problem with some new features I could implement in Composer.

Cheers
-- Mark

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Morning, Mark

Here's a quick sample.

I will hope to attach 3 small *.jpgs, each relating to the same or equivalent bars. (It looks from a first try as if I may have to do three posts to upload the pix?) The second and third ARE the same bars.

Not1
is from my initial version of a melody, created in Notation Composer, on the PC - i.e. direct entry. It is from the Notation Composer screen of the *.not file.

I then exported it to *.mid. Because I'm doing this retrospectively, I don't think I still have that file in its original form. On a future occasion, I would be able to preserve that.

Not2
is the same two bars as they came back from Biab within an arrangement, but the only change this line has had is that it has been 'swung.'
Again, this is from the Notation Composer screen of Notation Composer's unedited re-interpretation of a midi filed exported from Biab.

Noteworthy
is Noteworthy Composer's equivalent to Not2
i.e. this is from the Noteworthy Composer screen of Noteworthy Composer's unedited re-interpretation of the identical midi filed exported from Biab.

I include the Noteworthy comparison in an attempt to get a comparative view of what the midi files actually 'says'. I would guess from your comments last night that you may say it doesn't really amount to that - that ( a bit like quantum physics, which says that observing an event changes it) there is no way to see in staff notation exactly what a midi file 'says'.

In all practical respects Noteworthy cannot compete with Notation - the sound realisation is poor, and for all practical purposes it doesn't 'do' triplets, as you can see, to cite just two limitations.

For myself, as a pianist, Not1 is, by some margin, what I would prefer to see. What I would want to hear, if I were using the sound too, is what I would make of it at the piano, using the 'swing eighths' convention.

The Not2 bars are not typical of the whole part, by the way. The Notation Composer notation of most of the line in the file from which Not2 originates is mostly fine. But you can see that this 'hot-spot' really has to be improved somehow to make it use-able as score.
What I find hard to understand is why there is this wide variation of notation within the same file ? (Although it doesn't really matter if I 'understand', unless understanding gives the key to doing it better. )

BW

Ian G.

http://www.notation.com/discus/messages/32459/37074.jpg

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

I'm sorry, Mark. I'me having problems uploading the 2nd and third images. I keep getting an error message
Error
Your uploaded image exceeded the maximum dimensions of 640 x 640. Please shrink your image to be smaller than these dimensions.

even though I have edited them down to max dimension 630.

Any thoughts ? I'll come back and try again later - maybe something's 'stuck'.

Ian G

[Herbert WENDE (herbert)]

Hi Mark,

You said:

“Rather, you actually want Composer to over-notate the rhythms, in such details as would be unreadable by a musician.”

Not so. Also, I am not talking about communicating between several programs via midi as Ian does. But I am trying to notate rhythms as Ian does.

In my example, I am advancing a tom from the beat by a 16th note or a 32nd note. This makes the tom sound prominent in relation to the bass drum. When I convert the 5line drum staff to single line instruments for adjusting the velocity of a percussion instrument and then convert the percussion instruments back to a 5 line drum staff, the tom is now shown as a grace note. To me this is not correct notation and I have lost the visual indication of the precise timing (16th or 32nd).

On a wish list of possible improvements to Composer, this would rank fairly low for me. To Ian it is important. The problem is that midi does not care about notation but only about actual playback of sounds. Perhaps a few expert settings would help Ian. However I still object to Composer changing my notation for no good reason.

Best wishes,

Herbert

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Herbert

Going off at a tangent for a moment.
You say
"When I convert the 5line drum staff to single line instruments
".

I posted a question to you during our earlier exchange about stripping out bare rhythm, but I think it didn't go through - probably I just replied to the notatification email.

I'd be very grateful if you could spell out how to "convert the 5 line drum staff to single line instruments"

Sincerely

Ian G.

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Hello again, Mark.

I've been back twice to try to upload these pictures, and still keep getting the error message.

(I notice that the site is still remembering where the pix are on my PC, so it's possible there's some sort of saved configuration getting in the way that would be better cleared ?)

Since the pix are principally for your eyes, though possibly of interest to others, I'll email them to either you or Sherry direct.

Sincerely

Ian

[Herbert WENDE (herbert)]

Hi Ian,

On the menu bar, go to Staff, Split hands ..., drums ...

When you’re done, use Merge staves ... on the same menu, after selecting the 5 single line staves.

And here is a secret I am sharing with you, you can also use this sequence of commands to single out notes in staves for special treatment, in staves other than drums.

Best wishes,

Herbert

[Sherry Crann (sherry)]

Howdy Ian,

Here are the pictures you sent as well as the pertinent text quoted from your post, so as to "see it plain and see it whole"

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Not1
is from my initial version of a melody, created in Notation Composer, on the PC - i.e. direct entry. It is from the Notation Composer screen of the *.not file.

I then exported it to *.mid. Because I'm doing this retrospectively, I don't think I still have that file in its original form. On a future occasion, I would be able to preserve that.

Not2
is the same two bars as they came back from Biab within an arrangement, but the only change this line has had is that it has been 'swung.'
Again, this is from the Notation Composer screen of Notation Composer's unedited re-interpretation of a midi filed exported from Biab.

Noteworthy
is Noteworthy Composer's equivalent to Not2
i.e. this is from the Noteworthy Composer screen of Noteworthy Composer's unedited re-interpretation of the identical midi filed exported from Biab.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

http://www.notation.com/discus/messages/32459/37083.png

(btw you can add multiple pictures to a post by using the "Upload Attachment" button in the lower right at any point during your input that you want to add a picture.)

I realize that you said you probably don't have the original .mid file, but that is certainly what would be most helpful in sorting out this problem. If you have another file which demonstrates the same issues, please do post it, along with screen shots like above.

Thanks!
Sherry

[Mark Walsen (markwa)]

Hello Ian,

Here's an experiment that might help you better understand what's happening: Create the not1 example again in Composer. Export it as a MIDI file. Don't touch the MIDI file in Band-in-Box(!) Immediately reopen the MIDI file Composer. What does the notation look like? It looks exactly the same as you started with, right?What conclusion can one make from this experiment?

Cheers
-- Mark

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Morning Mark

Well, I'll take it on trust from you for the moment - let's make it a 'thought expt.'

Are you pointing the finger at Biab ?
Variant expt:
If 3 held good, but there was a time gap of say 1 week before 4 took place, and Composer (i.e. on the same PC) had been used regularly on other things in the meantime, would the notation still look the same ?

But that doesn't get us very far, anyway, since, for good personal and musical reasons, I do want to go to (and from) Biab. Your step four 4 would sound 'straight', not swung ? Which is not what I want - that is one reason for going through Biab.

Is there a means in Composer of telling it AT THE OUTSET to apply the swing eighths convention ? (I've just run a search for 'swing eighths' in the pdf Guide, and found nothing.)
If it were possible to input within the convention, AND hear it right without further fiddling, one significant strand of this whole issue would vanish. Inputting outside the convention to get the swung sound is much more fiddly - either you've got to start in 12/8, or stay in 4/4 and mess with dotted notes and triplets.

(I prefer swing eighths notation (where applicable) for 3 reasons:
1. it's easy to input
2. it is the convention
3. once you've internalised the convention, it strikes, for playing, exactly the right 'distances' between the player, the score and the music - it is not mathematically precise [as a straight notation of the same phrases would be] but it is close enough, and it allows space in the mind for variation. )

Sincerely

Ian

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Herbert

Lateral thinking ! I love it.

In fact, I've already benefited from your pointer. A lot of my stuff has more than one voice on a stave, and that expectation (on Composer's part) can cause complications (rests all over the place, tails up and down, unnecessary ties)if at a particular time and place, you're actually wanting a single line/voice. But split hands, and you've got your single voice stave (for the moment - it easily gets confused again !)

Have you ever posted generally about your musical interests, Herbert ?
Or would you like to tell us a bit about what you're doing ?

Sincerely

Ian G.

[Herbert WENDE (herbert)]

Hi Ian,

You said:

“If 3 held good, but there was a time gap of say 1 week before 4 took place, and Composer (i.e. on the same PC) had been used regularly on other things in the meantime, would the notation still look the same ?”

If your computer is working properly, the result is always the same, independent of time. The word “Computer” is equivalent to the word “Calculator”. Calculations do not change over time. There is no aging process involved as there may be in a musical instrument. A computer is not a musical instrument. A computer computes. The result of the very many, very fast and very complex computations is converted in the sound card to musical sound and music.

Best wishes,

Herbert

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Hello, Herbert

Well obviously you're right, and yet.....

If you've never had the experience of getting a different reaction from your PC to an identical input, you're a lucky man.

It happens in ways that doesn't contradict your point in logic, but confirms my experience. One example would be where the PC caches info re a website that later interferes with a new visit. You need to clear the cache. I wondered whether a similar effect might enter (in this case positively) into the scenario Mark proposed. I.e. maybe the PC wouldn't, in your word, simply 'calculate' but might partly 'have to hand'. My variant (which is actually truer to practical use) probably would force it to calculate, and it might come up with a different result.

Hypothetically, that may already be happening within the conversion of a single file. As I pointed out in an earlier post, it seems to be the case that a given midi rhythm pattern may be notated differently by Composer at different points in the same score.

Sincerely

Ian G.

[Sherry Crann (sherry)]

Howdy Ian,

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Is there a means in Composer of telling it AT THE OUTSET to apply the swing eighths convention ? (I've just run a search for 'swing eighths' in the pdf Guide, and found nothing.)
If it were possible to input within the convention, AND hear it right without further fiddling, one significant strand of this whole issue would vanish. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

You can use the Index in Help/Users Guide to find all indexed instances of "swing" topics and choose from them there. Just type in "swing" and it'll take you to all the "swing" topics. The first entry "swing rhythm/editing notation for" shows you how to enter swing rhythms up front so you won't have to rely on BIAB to do it for you.


For follow-up sake (and in case my pointer above doesn't make the problem vanish ;) ), the "change" you may be alluding to in your previous posts is perhaps the way you've asked Composer to transcribe your BIAB-exported MIDI files. Changing any of the transcription options will change how the notation looks (you can try this "live" using Format/Retranscribe and changing various options each time) but does not change the underlying MIDI data. So yes, if you've exported a MIDI file, then been working on other files and "turning knobs" as it were on the transcription options, then next time you open that previously exported .mid file, it just might look different. That's one reason that saving files as .not is so nice - the NoteSoft (.not) filetype "remembers" how the notation looked when you closed the file, so it's the same next time you open the file. Transcription options are irrelevant when re-opening a .not file. With a .mid file however, the transcription process has to happen "fresh", and so the notation (depending on the transcription options) may look different each time you open that same .mid file.

As Mark points out, if you don't touch the MIDI file in BIAB, and you don't touch the Transcription options in Composer, then you should see the same notation in the re-opened file as you saw when you first had the file open.

However, I suspect that the answer to the observed change in the transcribed notation of the .mid files (at least partially) lies in the "processing" that is going on. You mentioned some posts above:

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

The melody I have input to Composer at the computer, so at this stage it should be pretty precise, even wooden. If it is swing (as it usually is) I enter it in straight time at this stage (see next stage). I export it to a midi file.

Then I go to Biab. I import the melody directly into Biab from the midi file, and Biab will interpret it as 'swung' if I ask it to. I add chords (often asking Biab's opinion on that) and choose a style from Biab's vast range, and usually develop a 3, 4 or 5 chorus arrangement. I can save all that both as a Biab file and as a midi.

Now I want to go back to Composer. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

The experiment that Mark mentioned was to take the initial file, open it in BIAB, but NOT TOUCH IT. Thus when reopened, the file won't have changed. However, if I'm understanding the steps above correctly, the file IS being changed (it's being "swung") by BIAB, which accounts (at least in part) why it looks different the next time. Again the other "culprit" is Setup/Transcription options.

This discussion has been most instructive to me as we explore how folks are interacting with the software, and how we can improve the presentation of the software features (the general user interface, or GUI). Even if I'm not always jumping in and talking, I'm always listening http://www.notation.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

ttfn,
Sherry

[Sherry Crann (sherry)]

Howdy Ian,

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

I think the screen I found allowed me to quantify what that 'significant amount of time' was. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Were you looking at the Note Duration adjustment dialog?

http://www.notation.com/discus/messages/32459/37086.png

If so, it's in Piano Roll/Save and apply...(last button, 2nd level)/Edit note durations (only button, 3rd level.)

ttfn,
Sherry

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Dear Sherry

Welcome to the party !

OK, I've looked at 5.4.9.4, and tried a couple of sample bars. Yes, using that method I can (as I said this morning) enter swing rhythm by actually quantifying/articulating the rhythm; and then force it to display as swing eighths without losing the swung sound. The latter I didn't know, and learning it is a step forward.
But to repeat another point from earlier on, it's a h**l (sorry, forgot your language rule for a moment) of a kerfuffle. You're ('one' in English parlance!)for ever clicking for a different setting of one kind or another - entering as swing eighths involves much less change of that sort.
So I think the answer to my headline question you quoted at the start of your post is actually 'No', isn't it ?
I do think Composer is a bit out of line in not having a simple 'switch' for swing. Biab has one, and if I remember rightly Finale does (but I didn't like Finale for some other reason, and that's why I'm here !). (And clearly Composer actually has one deep inside - it understands the concept of swing eighths, even if it doesn't always identify them correctly.)

Moving on: I don't see what you're getting at with "if you don't touch the MIDI file in BIAB". If I don't 'touch' it, what's the point of taking it there ? I take it there because I want to do something(s) to it - the things Biab is 'for'.

Re transcription options and 'knobs' in Composer: until very recently I haven't used them much, and any changes I've made have been ad hoc, so the default settings have remained from one session to another. The issues I'm talking about (not2 etc) were certainly cropping up before I started looking at the transcription options. I started looking at the options because the mis-transcriptions were occurring - so they were happening under Composer's default settings.

Despite what you and Mark are saying (and Herbert to some extent), I'm not convinced that Composer is 100% consistent in its transcriptions. As I've pointed out, the 'mistranscribed' details - the sort of things that the Not2 picture illustrate - that I need to change by whatever means in order to use the score as score (as opposed to sound source) are always a minority of the score. You know in a jazz piece how the rhythm runs through - there are hundreds of 2-1 2-1 2-1 runs - why (in Composer) do most transcribe perfectly to swing eighths, but some come out like Not2?
Mark talked about 'tight' and 'loose'. I do think the 'transcription options' need to offer some sort of numerical setting one could tweak until these odd bars came into line.
Thanks for the head-up about the Note Duration screen. I'm not thrilled that it's part of the Piano Roll set-up - I would be far happier entering values into a dialogue. But still....The $64K question is: will those settings affect transcription? Could I select the bars in not2, go into the Note Duration process, presumably reduce values (to create more 'space' between notes) and see them separate out properly ? (Actually, I have tried without success, but maybe I wasn't doing it right ).

We're all trying hard, but I'm not sure we're getting very far. I think it'd be better if I spent less time writing on the forum, and more time making music, and then send you the actual files when problems come up.

Time for bed this side the pond.

Sincerely

Ian G.

[Herbert WENDE (herbert)]

Hi Ian,

Any inconsistency by Composer in processing a file would be a bug. Please identify and report any bug, you may come across, for the benefit of all Composer users.

Best wishes,

Herbert

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Morning, Herbert

"Please identify and report any bug, you may come across, for the benefit of all Composer users."
Well, I think it's clear in this thread that something important is open to improvement, and that Sherry and Mark are 'listening'.

"Any inconsistency by Composer in processing a file would be a bug"
As with a previous post, you're being logical but perhaps not making enough allowance for the complexity of 'things'?
Given the number of variables involved in note attack and duration in a jazz piece, and the range of amounts by which they vary, and the relatively random (or extremely complex, depending on your take)'pattern' in which variations themselves occur, may it not be a question of tweaking, within Composer as is, if the controls are accessible to do so ?

Having slept on my 'conversation' with Sherry, I wake with two fresh perspectives.
One is the metaphor of 'focus', which relates to what I've just tried to say to you. The sound is right, the graphic notation sometimes is, sometimes isn't. Where it isn't, the 'focus' needs adjusting.
The other, following on, is that maybe it's asking too much ( certainly technologically, and may be in a wider sense philosophically) to expect that there can be a 'transcription options'-type setting / 'focus' that will immaculately transcribe the whole of a relatively complex (see above) line.
But if the 'knobs' (Mark's word) are accessible, it might be possible to take several passes so that every bar is appropriately transcribed in at least one pass, and it would then be possible to cut and paste a composite version which was entirely acceptable.

Sincerely


Ian G.

[Herbert WENDE (herbert)]

Hi Ian,

This is a co-operative forum where we all help each other. Any finger pointing or personal attacks are not good. It is your claim, that Composer is inconsistent, which would be a bug. If I suspect a bug, I spend a lot of time identifying it, before I report it. Normally, my time is not for free, but I gladly contribute, as others do on this forum very generously.

You said:

“As with a previous post, you're being logical but perhaps not making enough allowance for the complexity of 'things'?
Given the number of variables involved in note attack and duration in a jazz piece, and the range of amounts by which they vary, and the relatively random (or extremely complex, depending on your take)'pattern' in which variations themselves occur, may it not be a question of tweaking, within Composer as is, if the controls are accessible to do so?”

Perhaps, I should be burning my text books, my large technical library, a huge collection of music and forget about a long live devoted to engineering and the arts, in particular the art of jazz.

Herbert

[Sherry Crann (sherry)]

Howdy guys,

While we do claim that Notation Software products do the best job of any software around at transcribing MIDI performance to readable notation, we don't claim perfection http://www.notation.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif That's one reason that Composer has all the "fine editing" tools that it has - to allow the end user to tweak the notation and/or performance to get it like s/he wants it.

From a software design perspective, we have the task of finding the balance between how much of the process is "automatic" and how much (and how many) controls to give the user, and in what shape those controls should be to benefit the most users. Mark has mentioned the man-years(!) he's put into the automatic part. We've also put a lot of man-years (including all the excellent beta testers and user-reports) into the "controls and presentation thereof". Is it perfect? Not yet, but we're still trying.

However, I know from experience that because written communication alone is somewhat lacking, there are a lot of factors that come into play which affect the performance of any software application that slip through the cracks when it comes to written questions, reports, and comments. One thing we're trying to do more of is to watch people actually using the software. It's amazing what folks might do out of habit that they wouldn't think to report along with a query, or don't think of as affecting our software but it does. So in that light, there are "things" that can happen but that can be documented and reproduced with some digging. That's one of the reasons that I ask so many questions a lot of times - I'm trying to figure out what it is that someone is doing to recreate a problem that they may not realize they're doing, or don't realize that it affects how the software performs. It's one reason that I wrote up "On Writing Helpful Bug Reports" - you can find it here (http://www.notation.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=24116&amp;post=19960#POST19960) under "Tips on using this forum."

One example (this actually happened): I got a report some time ago from a trial user that sound was sporadic. So I asked him what he meant by "sporadic". He then said sometimes it would playback sound and sometimes it wouldn't (which wasn't too helpful of an explanation ;) ). Then he made the comment that he could play MIDI files fine with other MIDI players. So I asked him which MIDI players did he use. He reported that Windows Media Player played files just fine, but then our software wouldn't play the files. That little "then" tipped me off. I downloaded and installed the latest iteration of WMP, and sure enough, after playing around with it for a while, I figured out that it was resetting the MIDI volume control on my soundcard to '0', thus making it appear that any other MIDI playback device wasn't working properly. Apparently his computer would reset the volume to something audible when he restarted it, but if he'd used WMP prior to using Composer, Composer "wasn't working". (Notation products now check the MIDI volume on startup, so this is no longer an issue.) This is just one example of "things" that can happen.

So with all that in mind, we know the automatic part of the transcription isn't perfect, and we know that all you guys are trying to help us figure out what can be better. We appreciate the time and effort that you put into reporting problems and making suggestions, because we know how much we'd all rather be making good music http://www.notation.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Thanks!
Sherry

[Djim Tio (djimtio)]

Hi Sherry and all
Just to say that I enjoyed following this very technical and filosofical
thread about forcing note performances.
I am convinced and afraid that some day very soon a software will be made available
to make " perfect music ", whatever that may be.
But I have also seen some music editing software already having a " humanise " feature as an option ;)
Finally ,I do like the human factor in Composer,just for not being perfect so I can blame something for not making perfect music and having all the fun of trying to make it.
Sorry for this non-tech intervention.
Regards
Djim

[Mark Walsen (markwa)]

Hello All,

I've now reread this thread, which is growing by the day!

You all want some solutions to problems here, so this post will propose some solutions. You can let me know here if they will significantly help.

First, a brief introduction: There's a two-way road between MIDI and notation. MIDI to notation is called "transcription". Notation to MIDI is called "musical interpretation". We should be clear about the distinction when we discuss and solve these problems. I will propose some solutions that deal with both transcription and interpretation in a uniform way that deals with both directions between MIDI and notation.

Ian reports that Composer’s transcription is inconsistent. Transcription is inconsistent if, given exactly the same MIDI file, the resulting notation is different. I highly suspect that Herbert experience of inconsistent transcription is due to different Transcription Options settings being applied at different times. With exactly same set of Transcription Options and the same MIDI file, the same notation should be produced. It's possible that some additional factor alters the resulting notation; but I have not ever observed exactly the same Transcription Options and same MIDI file produce different notation. I think the problem here is that the user is unknowingly applying different Transcription Options at different times.

My proposal for solving the problem identified in the previous paragraph is that the Transcription Options dialog will let the user set one or more “transcription profiles”. Take a look at Sherry’s screen shot of the Transcription Options dialog box near the top of this thread. There would be an extra place in the Transcription Options dialog box where the user could say, “Please remember exactly all of the checkmarks and settings in this dialog box, and give those settings the name ‘My Options.”

Now that you have a precise set of Transcription Options associated with the options profile name ‘My Options’, you can confidently recall those options when re-transcribing a MIDI file, with assurance that the MIDI file will transcribe to exactly the same notation.

Going the other direction, from notation to MIDI, is called “MIDI interpretation”. It has been pointed out in this thread that Composer does no MIDI interpretation, while other notation apps out there do. That’s quite true. That will change. In the last 18 months, I’ve already done a lot of unpublished work in the area of MIDI interpretation of notation. That includes interpretation of markings such as accent marks and dynamic mark. To be honest, I had not planned to also include swing rhythm interpretation, but that will be easy to add. These interpretation features will be delivered in Composer 3.0, which release date I cannot commit to yet.

Included with the interpretation feature will be the equivalent of the ‘My Options’ proposed above for the Transcription Options dialog box. The user will be able to control the musical interpretations with quite a few knobs. The user will be able to save distinct sets of musical interpretation knobs settings with one or more ‘My Interpretation’ names. Thus, there would be a close parallel in how the user can save and recall options for both directions between MIDI and notation: transcription and interpretation.

The above solution does not claim to solve every problem related to transcription that has been discussed in this thread. If we admit that perfection is impossible in transcription and interpretation, would you find the above solution a big step forward for Composer 3.0?

Cheers
-- Mark

[Mark Walsen (markwa)]

P.S. Sherry sent me an email pointing out that it was Ian, not Herbert, who reported inconsistent transcription. So, I edited the above post accordingly. If you got an email notification of the post, the email will say Herbert instead of Ian.

Cheers
-- Mark

[Herbert WENDE (herbert)]

Hi Mark,

You said:

“I highly suspect that Herbert experience of inconsistent transcription is due to different Transcription Options settings being applied at different times.”

No, I have not complaint about any inconsistent transcription, but pointed to a consistent reinterpretation of my notation while editing a .not file. Please read again my post of Monday, February 23, 2009 – 5:47 am.

Here is a step by step procedure to demonstrate what I mean.

1. Start a new song with a 5 line drum staff.
2. Place a 1/16 note for a tom at the end of the first measure.
3. Place a 1/16 note for a bass drum at the beginning of the second measure.
4. Convert the 5 line staff to single line staves
5. Convert the single line staves to a 5 line staff.

The result is that the tom has now become a grace note in the second bar.

Best wishes,

Herbert

[Herbert WENDE (herbert)]

Hi Mark

Just read your last post after sending my post.

Herbert

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Dear Herbert

I've just come to the forum after a busy day (UK time) and I'm reading the posts in chronological order. I've got as far as your February 25, 2009 - 3:25 am: post.

I'm am sorry you found anything in my post at which to take offence. I am totally at a loss at to what it might be, but I respect your knowledge and contributions, and I therefore express my regrets anyway.

Sincerely

Ian G.

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Mark

Continuing to work forward through the day's posts, as previously noted...........

Re your Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 12:43 pm post:

I've already upset Herbert unintentionally; so I think I should point out that you are possibly (?probably) attributing to Herbert comments and faults that are mine, not his .

Ian G.

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

And Mark again

Having now read the whole of your your Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 12:43 pm post, I have to say that all sounds brilliant. Can I just put in a plea that, where practicable, it should be possible to specify one's preferences by means of numerical values (e.g. perhaps the size of the 'envelope' within which Composer will deem midi sounds to be 'simultaneous' for the purposes of transcription)?

Power to your elbow (s) !

Ian G.

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Hello, all

I think I'm up to date now!

It seems to me that part - just a part - of the 'problem' we've been masticating so thoroughly is (paradoxically) that Composer is normally such an excellent transcriber. When a bar or two are not transcribed as one might like, one need is to 'see the midi', and what might help with that is a notator which is far cruder than we expect Composer to be. I've been looking around, and there's a little freeware sequencer called Anvil Studio, which I wouldn't want to have to look at for more than a few minutes at a time, but which I think might serve as a sort of microscope to 'check the midi'. What I envisage is to use Composer's excellent copying tools and the 'new from clipboard' route to make a 'mini' midi file to put 'under the microscope'.

That's the plan, anyway/ If it provers useful, I will report back.

BW to all

Ian G.

[Mark Walsen (markwa)]

Hello Ian,

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

... it should be possible to specify one's preferences by means of numerical values (e.g. perhaps the size of the 'envelope' within which Composer will deem midi sounds to be 'simultaneous' for the purposes of transcription)?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>That might be a good "power user" option for Composer to offer.

There is probably a way to trick Composer into accomplishing what you want, which is more precise transcription. Composer is "afraid" that it might be too precise, showing too many rhythmic details, where the musician reading the score would be happier with simpler rhythms. Sometimes Composer is "too afraid" of being too precise.

We probably can trick Composer into being more precise: Open the MIDI file, and let Composer transcribe as imprecisely as it might do. Select the meter (time signature) at the first measure. In the Meter menu, choose the Scale Meter command, and double the time, so that a quarter note becomes a half note. Save this meter-scaled MIDI file. Reopen it. Now Composer will transcribe the MIDI file with essentially twice as much precision. Reverse the previous Meter Scale command, to bring the note values back to their original scale: Select the meter in the first measure; choose the Scale command in the Meter menu; and scale a half note to a quarter note (or quarter note to an eighth note).I'd appreciate your letting me know if this helps a lot. This is just an experiment. I wouldn't expect the Composer user to follow this work-around procedure as a daily practice.

Cheers
-- Mark

[Mark Walsen (markwa)]

Hello Herbert,

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

1. Start a new song with a 5 line drum staff.
2. Place a 1/16 note for a tom at the end of the first measure.
3. Place a 1/16 note for a bass drum at the beginning of the second measure.
4. Convert the 5 line staff to single line staves
5. Convert the single line staves to a 5 line staff.

The result is that the tom has now become a grace note in the second bar.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>That's a good trick you played on Composer to trip it up. Composer's counter move in this game is to go to the Setup / Transcription Options command, and turn off the checkmark for Transcribe Ornaments / Grace Notes. Now the 16th note is restored in the 5-line staff as a 16th note rather than grace.

Your move next ;-)

Cheers
-- Mark

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Mark

Thanks for your February 26, 2009 - 11:28 pm: suggestion. Yes, I can see the logic of that and it well be helpful. I'll bear it in mind next time I'm in 'that position', and let you know.

Thanks for all your attention to this issue.

Ian

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Mark

I'm going to attach a short *.not file. Let's ignore its history for the moment except to say it now LOOKS as a* .not as I would like to see it.

Sound-wise, it is a mixture of swung and straight time values. (That is because of the history we're ignoring). If I had input it all directly, it would sound ALL straight time.

What would you advise as the best next step to get it sounding all swung - i.e. as you or I would play it, within the swing-eighths convention ?

Sincerely

Ian <center><table border=1><tr><td>http://www.notation.com/discus/icons/attachment_icon.gifst_looksgood
st+looksgood.not (http://www.notation.com/discus/messages/32459/st_looksgood-37109.not) (26.5 k)</td></tr></table></center>

[Mark Walsen (markwa)]

Hello Ian,

I started to write up a tedious set of instructions for how to use piano roll to do this. You can take a pair of notated 8th notes, and hit the "33" key to change them to a notated and performed swing. That much is easy to do, except that you have to do it a pair of notes at a time, which is tedious. It gets even more tedious, however, to then keep the performed swing rhythm in tact while restoring the written-out swing to a simple pair of 8th notes again. This was so difficult to do, that I recommend that you don't even try it. If I can't figure out how to do it easily, there are only a few other people who have a chance of pulling it off (eg, Sherry and David).

So, I hate to say it, but there just isn't a good way to instruct Composer to interpret the 8th note pairs as a performed swing rhythm. That is a very common need for jazz. Other notation programs support this. So should Composer.

In the upcoming version 2.6, I'll add a swing interpretation feature that will make it easy to do this. When you see that feature in 2.6, you can say to yourself, "I got that feature added to Composer!"

It's task #2082.

Cheers
-- Mark

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

By the 'Crann Rule of Proportions' (cf her post in this thread Friday, February 20, 2009 - 9:26 am ), a lot of people will be very happy with 2.6 ! Look forward to it.

Thanks

Ian

[David Jacklin (dj)]

Hi, Mark:

Is task #2083 "get some sleep"?

David

[Sherry Crann (sherry)]

Howdy David,

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Is task #2083 "get some sleep"? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Only if we forget to refill his caffeine pump ;)

ttfn,
Sherry

[Mark Walsen (markwa)]

Hi David,

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Is task #2083 "get some sleep"?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Well, I'm afraid some of the regular participants in this forum might be thinking that I've been asleep for a long time, because I haven't been participating myself in the forum for a fairly long time, and because there hasn't been a point release (2.6), let alone a major release (3.0) for a long time.

Actually, though, I've been working as hard as ever, but had to divert more of my time in the last half year to just the business and marketing side of NS. You know, we have a recession going on these days. There's good news there for NS; we're doing fine; I'm quite optimistic that we'll make it through the recession. In not many weeks, you'll see an entirely new NS website. To be honest, the new website work is primarily an effort to help sales; but it will also provide better support. For example, I'm currently evaluating other forum software packages, to replace the one you're looking at now. Sherry and I will tear down the current forum and reorganize it into simpler categories, abandoning that experimental idea I had that the forum's organization should match the table of contents of the Users Guide.

Most of my development work on Notation Composer and Musician has therefore been delayed in the last year. I'm not happy about that. But I'll be resuming development work soon, to finish version 2.6, introduce two new products, and finish 3.0. A huge portion of that work was already completed in the last 2 to 3 years.

My track record for meeting promised release dates is poor, so I'm not promising any release dates. But all of the above is reality, not "vaporware" (remember that old term from the early 90s?).

Cheers
-- Mark

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Dear Mark, and all

I shall attach 2 files, and *.mid and a *.not.

The latter is the (auto-) transcription of the former, with transcription settings 'remove overlaps of notes' and 'do not remove rests'. I haven't edited the notation at all.

I'm particularly interested in the 'Soloist' track. And so much of the transcription is very good, exemplary in places - see, for instance, bars 7, 12, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, and 38 , for some clear notation of quite complex stuff.

BUT: look at bar 4 beat 3 (4-3);13-4;15-4;16-3;26-3;28-3&amp;4;29-2;32-1 and 33-3. I think they're all examples of the same thing - sequential notes transcribed as chords. In most cases, the time separations involved as quite as large as those correctly separated in the 'good' bars cited. Can you recommend a transcription setting that would 'catch' these ?

Also, look at the rhythm in bars 34 - 36. To my ear, the soloist is playing across the beat in pretty much equal steps - but that isn't what the transcription says. What are those triplets doing, for instance ?

Mark: I'm not getting at Composer. It may be something in the midi file. I'm just trying to understand !

Regards

Ian G.


<center><table border=1><tr><td>http://www.notation.com/discus/icons/mime_midi.gifBehind Blue Alice - mid
Behind_Blue_Alice.MID (http://www.notation.com/discus/messages/32459/Behind_Blue_Alice-37124.mid) (16.0 k)</td></tr></table></center>
<center><table border=1><tr><td>http://www.notation.com/discus/icons/attachment_icon.gifBehind Blue Alice not
Behind_Blue_Alice.not (http://www.notation.com/discus/messages/32459/Behind_Blue_Alice-37125.not) (156.6 k)</td></tr></table></center>

[Mark Walsen (markwa)]

Hello Ian,

I see that the relatively poor transcription is happening in the Soloist (BB) track. There's a good way to improve its transcription.

The problem is that the average note in the Solist track lags behind the beat by 29 MIDI ticks. I'll calculate below what that lag is in milliseconds. It turns out that this is such a big lag that it messes up the transcription.

We can fix the problem by shifting all of the Solist notes to the lest by 29 MIDI ticks, so that on the average they land exactly on the beat. Then we'll retranscribe the Sololist track with much better results.

Finally, if for some reason really want the notes to lag, on the average, by 29 MIDI ticks, as a last step you can add back the 29 MIDI ticks to each note.

The whole procedure is actually fairly easy. Here's how it works.

First, let's analyze the problem by looking at the piano roll notation. Choose the option to see the as-performed piano roll rectangles. Select the entire Soloist track. Use the Convert Region to Selection of notes command. Then shift the notes (both attack and release) by one tick to the left. The button in the piano roll pallette shifts notes by 15 ticks at a time. If you use the keyboard shortcut, Shift+LeftArrow, then the ticks are shifted one tick at a time. Use the keyboard shortcut in this example.Here's what you'll see:

http://www.notation.com/discus/messages/32459/37129.jpg

I'm looking above at the rhythm transcription problem in measure 13. I'm stacking the deck in this write-up to show you a place where this procedure improves transcription. This procedure doesn't fix the problem in measure 4. This procedure doesn't promise to fix every problem. Rather, this procedure will improve the overall results of the transcription.

Notice that Composers reports that the note attack offset is +29 MIDI ticks. That means that the average note in the Soloist track lags 29 MIDI ticks after the beat. Visually, that means that the piano roll rectangles tend to lie to the right of the music notes in the score. You can see that above.

Aside for the mathematically inclined reader: How long is a MIDI tick? It depends on the tempo. In Notation Composer, there are 480 ticks per quarter note (which is common among many MIDI applications, but some apps using different resolutions.) The tempo of this song is 105 quarter notes per minute. You can see that next to the metronome icon in the toolbar. At that tempo, there are 105 x 480 = 50400 ticks per minute, or 840 ticks per second. One tick lasts 1/840 seconds = 0.0019 seconds, or 1.9 milliseconds. So, the average lag of 29 ticks is 28 * 1.9 = 34.5 milliseconds! That is a long lag!

I'm curious, Ian. Did you record in this Soloist track, or did BIAB generate it?

The next step is to fix the lag, temporarily or permanently, whichever way to desire. Click the Shift Note Left button 29 times, or type Shift+LeftArrow 29 times. Now you'll see Offset Attack: +0 reported in the status bar, which means that on the average the notes are lined up with the beat.

http://www.notation.com/discus/messages/32459/37130.jpg

Now, re-transcribe just the Sololist track. Use the Format / Re-transcribe command. Don't forget to choose the Swing style for this jazz-swing style piece:

http://www.notation.com/discus/messages/32459/37131.jpg

Here's what you see now:

http://www.notation.com/discus/messages/32459/37132.jpg

Turn off the piano roll, such as by clicking the Notes and Rest tab, to see the notes without the messy piano roll:

http://www.notation.com/discus/messages/32459/37133.jpg

If you want to restore the original performance, just reverse the earlier step, by selecting all of the notes in the Soloist track and shift their attacks to the right by 29 ticks.

Cheers
-- Mark

[Ian Douglas Graham (iandgraham)]

Dear Mark

Thankyou for taking so much trouble. It's absolutely fascinating.

Yes, it is a Biab-generated 'solo', and I think your diagnosis is a remarkable vindication of Biab's musicality - what you are demonstrating empirically is the mechanics of a 'laid-back' feel. I've just paused in writing this to listen again to the midi file without any score or visual parallel, and I think it sounds very musical, in its type. Wouldn't you agree ?

As to the *.not file / transcription, well, refer to my earlier descriptions of the different ways I might use the file. I find the process you lay out perfectly acceptable if it's what the situation requires. I think in practical terms, I'd probably clone the stave, and have one for sound and one for score, muting or hiding according to my purposes.

It's also interesting that the process shifts all notes equally - so the 'distances between them' are unchanged, and yet the transcription changes. This seems to imply a note's relation to the (metronome) beat is more influential in the transcription than its relation to the preceding and following note(s). Is that right ? If so,(a) is the 'snap to grid' setting relevant, and (b) might a 'tweak' to make the 'distances' relatively more important be a future possibility ?

Intriguing stuff. Thanks again for your trouble.

Ian G.

[Mark Walsen (markwa)]

Hello Ian,

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Yes, it is a Biab-generated 'solo', and I think your diagnosis is a remarkable vindication of Biab's musicality - what you are demonstrating empirically is the mechanics of a 'laid-back' feel.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>BIAB's jazz solo is quite convincing. I sure wish I could improvise a melody read-time like that. About 10 years ago, I took a stab at learning jazz piano from a Seattle area jazz musician. He was kind to me-- after all, I was paying him for the lessons ;-) -- but I could tell he thought I was sort of a hopeless case. I gave up after 6 months. Maybe I'll try again someday

Cheers
-- Mark